Browns have never made a SuperBowl, and the Cavs were swept in their only NBA Championship attempt last season. But that's not what you asked. :)

The Indians have had far more stars than any baseball team in LA, certainly. And the Browns have had more than any football team in LA. The Cavs have had their fair share of stars, though on this one the Lakers obviously win.

This is a strange conversation. The Browns may not have won a Superbowl, but they have won NFL championships, the last in 1964. They have had many stars as well Otto Graham was the best quarterback of his era, and of course Jim Brown. (There were others, but that resolve the issue.)

The Indians have won World Series, just not since 1948. But as people have mentioned, that doesn't mean they didn't have stars. Even during the 90's when they were in the playoffs year after year and didn't win a world series they had stars, some were 'fading stars' like Orel Hershiser, but they were still stars.

The Cav's of course haven't won an NBA championship and did get swept in the finals last year, but unlike the Lakers and the Clippers, they at least were there. And they have had their stars as well.

And of the three sports mentioned at least all of the sports franchises in Cleveland started in Cleveland. Unlike LA that has stolen franchises from all over the country going all the way back to the Dodgers leaving New York and the Rams leaving Cleveland when they were overshadowed by the upstart Browns.

But the question was on stars, and it is not hard to name them, the problem is getting those with a lack of knowledge to acknowledge them.

The Indians clearly have had better players over the years, although LA has only had a team for about 50 years. If you made up an all-time team for each franchise, the Indians would slaughter the LA Dodgers (Indians vs. Dodgers overall would be a much better matchup). Most of the guys Jack named were either not stars, or not stars in LA.

The Cav's of course haven't won an NBA championship and did get swept in the finals last year, but unlike the Lakers and the Clippers, they at least were there.

Please. It was universally acknowledged that the east was the JV division. Getting to the finals in the "least" was nothing special.

If you look at the past 25 years the Lakers have a ton of championships whereas those pretenders have what.

and of the three sports mentioned at least all of the sports franchises in Cleveland started in Cleveland. Unlike LA that has stolen franchises from all over the country going all the way back to the Dodgers leaving New York and the Rams leaving Cleveland

LA didn't steal any of them. They ran away as fast as they could from a dying city. Not only that but they all enjoyed far more success once they got out of the burning river.

Most of the guys Jack named were either not stars, or not stars in LA.

Better check your facts. Not just that, but you might want to clarify what you mean by star.

Drysdale played the majority of his career in LA as did Koufax.

Hershisher played the majority of his career in LA and was considered to be among the finest pitchers in the game during his time.

Just for fun you could compare the number of Hall of Famers using these twolinks.

It is a flawed system. If you look at the list of names you'll see players who spent the majority of their careers elsewhere. OTOH, you'll see that the Dodgers list is substantially larger.

In fact the question of whether an all time Indians team would beat an LA Dodgers team is something that I'd accept any day of the week because we simply have a superior team in every way.

I should have made it clear I was talking about baseball players. Koufax and Drysdale are legit. Piazza is a HOFer, but might not even enter as a Dodger. Jackie never played a single game as a LA Dodger. Vic Scully and Tommy Lasorda? Ok.....

In fact the question of whether an all time Indians team would beat an LA Dodgers team is something that I'd accept any day of the week because we simply have a superior team in every way.

Unless there are a number of people I'm unaware of, this is crazy.

Let's construct the two teams. To be fair, if the player made the HOF as an Indian, I'm going to put him on the team. If he didn't make the Hall, I'll use my judgment. For the Dodgers, if a Brooklyn player played a single game in LA, I'll count him.

You're missing the boat. Let's start by World Series titles from when the Dodgers moved home. That was 1958.

Hey, if you're going to argue that the Dodgers (or LA as a whole) have won more championships than the Indians (and Cleveland) I'm not going to disagree. Let Ezzie fight that battle.

But you said "In fact the question of whether an all time Indians team would beat an LA Dodgers team is something that I'd accept any day of the week because we simply have a superior team in every way."

That's clearly wrong. The Indians have the far superior hitting, and that's not really in dispute.

Great pitching defeats good hitting.

This is a myth. But even if it were true, it's not clear the Dodgers have the better pitching.

Again let's use a crude metric to make that determination: ERA+, which is ERA adjusted for home park and league. 100 is average and anything higher means a player is that percentage above average. So a pitcher with a 105 ERA+ is five percent above an average pitcher.